5 million more reasons why caste survives

to the few bloggers who'd commented on my last 2-3 posts: my apologies. for various reasons, i wasn't able to respond earlier.

i'd like to respond now to one comment by kiran here. he says:

So are you trying to suggest that Banks would have been all inclusive if they remained private ? Unlikely. Even those 10% would not have been there.

by 1980, employees in nationalized banks numbered around one million. more than 9 lakhs of those were from the upper castes. you could say around 9 lakh upper caste families (more than 5 million individuals) benefitted directly from the nationalization project.

those were national resources that were deployed to nationalize and run those banks- but they employed, almost exclusively, upper caste individuals and lent money, almost exclusively, to upper caste individuals. did nationalization reduce caste inequalities? it aggravated them. upper caste individuals, long used to privileges, were rewarded with new positions of privilege just as naturally as in the past. and the lower castes paid for those privileges just as naturally as in the past. but the key difference was: if you were a landlord in the pre-modern era, feudal honour required that you make sure those who worked for you didn't starve. the new privileges carried no such price.

how many million lower caste individuals paid for the privileges of those 5 million upper caste individuals? how many of those 5 million would actually admit that caste is a problem? most of them would probably say: it had no role to play in their lives.

what would private banks have done? by 1980, they definitely wouldn't have been able to reward 5 million upper caste individuals with privileges and made several million more lower caste individuals pay for those privileges.

smart cards: time for a smart dole?

a recent news report:

The Centre is finalising a proposal to use multi-application smart cards with unique IDs for citizens to check largescale illegal immigration and to better target and implement government schemes.

the smart cards can be used in other, much more important, ways too:

"The multi-purpose smart card will help in effective targeting of subsidies and better monitoring of programmes and ensure that fraudulent multiple claims are minimised. It will also help in checking illegal migration in the border areas," said an official.

The need for a multi-purpose national identity card has been felt for purposes as diverse as drawing benefits from government’s flagship schemes like NREGA, getting ration from PDS shops or meeting security concerns.

'effective targeting of subsidies and better monitoring of programmes'? i'd talked about how a straight forward dole would be much more effective than a hundred different varieties of elaborately devised poverty alleviation schemes in this post. and how poor the monitoring of programmes such as the nrega is, in these ( a, b, c) posts. and i'd talked here about how other developing countries like mexico are using variants of the dole to not just supplement the incomes of poor villagers- they're also using them to achieve better spread of education, and to improve women and child care etc., looks like the goi has learnt some important lessons- but has it learnt the most important one? a hundred different schemes run by a hundred different kind of central, state and local government agencies would always mean that the programmes could spring several thousand holes through which funds could leak. why not keep things simple?

why not stick to one smart programme, a dole, instead of making the poor try to prove their identity, their deprivation, their need to several authorities through several kinds of registration, documentation, endorsement and verification, every time a government, at any random level, develops doubts about a certain programme or wants to a introduce new scheme-scam to further its own electoral or other interests? in this context, i'd like to express my agreement with the indian communists- they have always fought against targeting. i've different reasons for endorsing universalization- one smart universal scheme, i believe, would be more effective than several poorly targeted, and even more poorly monitored schemes. one smart scheme, i'm sure, would eliminate the need for all the other schemes. a dole for every rural family could be used to achieve much more than a small reduction in current levels of poverty. as i'd tried to point out in this post, it could also be used to ward off future poverty.

john elliot, writing here, discusses the smart cards too.

india and the camel

you've heard of the arab and the camel. let's look at india and delhi now. let me quote a short paragraph from this paper to illustrate the point i'm going to make:

...for example, one of our findings is that while the central government spends (in 2005-06) rs.4.07 on hrd-nh per person in orissa, it spends rs.177.12 in delhi, rs.105.42 in uttaranchal, rs.105 in arunachal pradesh, rs.77.7 in assam, rs.33.78 in himachal pradesh, rs.28.10 in west bengal, rs.25.12 in karnataka, rs.17.29 in tamil nadu, rs.17.09 in maharashtra, rs.17.08 in u.p., rs.16.2 in jharkhand, rs.16.05 in andhra, rs.14.5 in j & k....

i haven't quoted the full paragraph because i think you've already got the point. that was the spending on national highways- only one indicator of many barely hidden signs that delhi is steadily pushing india out of the tent. from a capital of a union of states and a municipality it's been fast growing again into an imperial capital and a state-nation on its own. people, and more acutely, politicians, businessmen, mediapersons and the smartest sections of the middle classes in the states in the immediate neighbourhood understand that. who from the neighbouring states doesn't want to be in delhi? from charan singh to bahuguna to v.p.singh to n.d.tiwari to mulayam singh to mayawati- which chief minister from uttar pradesh hasn't expressed his/her desire to be the prime minister (sometimes, even before he/she became the chief minister)? bihar isn't any different and if the chief ministers and other ambitious politicians from the other states around delhi aren't so candid about expressing their 'right' (because that's what it ultimately seems to be: none of them seem to have any doubts about whether they deserve the post) it doesn't mean they don't nurse any such aspirations. and if the rulers do not wish to stay in their respective states a moment longer than necessary why should the ruled want to be in those states? especially, if they're smart?

a large portion of those employed by the central government, through its various ministries, the psus, the banks, the railways and the armed forces have planted themselves in delhi and even the threat of an imminent nuclear attack wouldn't convince them to leave, i think. that wouldn't be less than a million people (i'd agree if you say- two million, but i'll come to these figures later) hanging onto a million of the most prized jobs in the country. a million people who'd get the first chance to help themselves to the billions that the central government supposedly spends on the upkeep (after first paying for its own upkeep) of the country and to 'develop' it and to 'alleviate' poverty. if you were one among those lucky million, would you let the gravy train just roll by, onward to the boondocks- even after you've been paid enough for your needs? without stealing from it, or directing its course or in some way attempting to change its destination? you'd be stupid if you didn't do any of those things.

[this was growing into a very long post so i'm going to stop here and continue later].